By a vote of 6-1 (with 1 abstaining) the Arizona Senate’s Border Security, Federalism and States Sovereignty Committee approved Senate Bill 1182 (SB1182), bringing it one step away from a full Senate vote.

SB1182, if signed into law, “Prohibits this state and agencies of this state from participating in the implementation of Sections 1021 and 1022 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2012. Classifies the act of attempting to enforce or enforcing these sections as a class 1 misdemeanor.”

A modified version of the Liberty Preservation Act released by the Tenth Amendment Center this month, Arizona joins a growing choir of states and localities who’ve decided that waiting for federal politicians to repeal their own power is something they’re not willing to risk.

The bill was introduced by Senator Sylvia Allen, originally on 01-19-12 on a different subject. But, through a process in Arizona known as a “strike everything amendment” she was able to insert the Liberty Preservation Act language into the bill in time for the committee hearing today. According to the Arizona Legislature,

A “strike everything after the enacting clause” amendment (also referred to as a “strike everything” amendment or simply a “striker”) proposes to delete the entire text of the existing bill and substitute new language, essentially making it a completely different bill, possibly on an entirely different subject. These amendments are sometimes used to allow legislators to circumvent the deadlines on introduction of new legislation, deal with an issue that arises after the deadline or revive a bill that has previously been defeated.

A strike everything amendment was also submitted for Senate Concurrent Resolution 1011 (SCR1011), which includes the following position amongst a long denouncement of the federal act signed into law by Barack Obama on 12-31-11:

That the Members of the Legislature condemn sections 1021 and 1022 of the 2012 NDAA as they purport to repeal posse comitatus and authorize the President of the United States to use the armed forces of the United States to police American citizens, to indefinitely detain persons captured within the United States without charge until the end of hostilities as purportedly authorized by the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, to subject persons captured within the United States to military tribunals, and to transfer persons captured within the United States to a foreign country or foreign entity.

Tenth Amendment Center communications director Mike Maharrey pointed out that the vigorous debate on the meaning of sections 1021 and 1022 should raise concern in and of itself.

“It is clear to me, and I am far from alone in this view, that the detention provisions in the NDAA are vague, overbroad and open to interpretation. That leaves me to trust in the good character and moral clarity of Barak Obama, Rick Santorum or whoever happens to reside at the White House, to protect me and my fellow Americans from abuse of this power. No thanks!” he said.

Recent Visitors

The Lawyers made me do it

The opinions expressed on this blog are mine alone. Any material posted here is made available for educational and informative purposes, and as such constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. , section 107 of the US Copyright Law. The material on this blog is provided without profit for benign research and educational purposes.